Jimquisition: When Piracy Becomes Theft

[SonOfVoorhees]

Im ending this argument cos its semantics. Its like saying its ok to rape a prostitute but not someones mother. The crime is still bad but some think some victims are less than others.

Theft is theft regardless of all the sematics and reasons. Whether its a copy or a physical thing. You don't own it, you didn't buy it so it isn't yours legally. I know they just want free stuff, and i agree with them, free stuff is awesome. Just worthless arguing about things that no one will ever agree on.

 

[Naeras]

You can't pirate an ice cream sandwich, you can steal one and that's theft. Pirating software is not theft, it's copyright infringement.

For those who are confused about copyright infringement vs theft. Copyright Infringment means that only certain entities have the RIGHT to make COPIES of something, usually the publisher. Others who do it are infringing on the copyright as they are not legally allowed to make copies (outside of a legal backup). No matter how people try to twist it, it just isn't the same as walking into Wal Mart and stuffing a 360 game into your pants.

I didn't disagree with you at all, in case you missed the part of my post where I was saying that it doesn't change the argument here. I simply happen to agree with the main point of the video: people that pirate cheap-ass, consumer friendly indie games, games that often cost the same as an ice cream sandwich and doesn't require you to install bullshit software in order to "eat" it (hence the somewhat flawed analogy), are bigger assholes than people who pirate expensive-ass, DRM-laden games.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

Ohhhh After Effects.

SOMEONE'S rolling in money

or they y'know pirated it...

Dont worry, Adobe wants the average consumer to pirate their software, the more people know how to work with their stuff the more companies will buy the licenses to use it since all their workers only know how to work with Adobe stuff.

Unless the company itself pirates the stuff. Which happens more often than people think. But you are right.

 

[Epona]

When did theft come to mean that somebody lost something?

You go in and add a bunch of zeros to your bank balance, then buy a bunch of games on debit.
The bank didn't lose anything, no physical object was transferred, the store got paid. Are we going to argue there was no theft there.

Theft has been widely understood, since basically the dawn of history, of someone taking something that doesn't belong to them.

That the other person no longer had it was simply a side-effect of physical reality, but was never the point of theft.

Not until pirates started thinking, "How do I justify my douche-baggery?" anyway.

You need to re-examine your example. How did the bank lose nothing AND the store get paid?

I've bolded the part you need to read.

Try to follow along. I will type slowly.

If you go add a bunch of zeros to your bank account balance and then go shopping, one of two things happen:

- Bank pays for the stuff you bought, bank loses money.
- Bank refuses to pay, store loses merchandise.

Either way, it's theft because someone loses something.

LOL, Christ, try getting a basic understanding of how banks work and what money is before attempting to be condescending. You'll still suck at it, but at least it won't be outright laughable.

Big hint: Money these days is primarily represented by data, and most of the money in our economy doesn't actually exist.. it's just one bank saying to another, we've got this much value. When you pay by debit, bits on one side of the transaction are decreased, bits on the other are increased. No "money" is transferred.

When you add bits to your account, no "money" is trasnferred. Nobody's losing anything. Just like piracy. If anything, the bank is *gaining* money, because according to their records, they now have more of these infinitely copiable bits to lend out.

Whatever, I doubt that anyone can just add zeros as they see fit and then go shopping and no one will lose anything. If that's your argument then what is stopping you from doing that?

 

[Electrogecko]

Sorry Jim, but to me, pedophile burglar sounds like someone who seeks out and steals from pedophiles.

 

[dbenoy]

What irritates me is that it's fundamentally an argument over semantics.

Yes. We have two separate issues here. Some people who advocate against copying will call it 'stealing' in order to strengthen the impact of their point.

Others, however, believe that copying and stealing are equivalent in every way, and it's impossible to consistently advocate for one without advocating for the other.

The latter is totally bizarre, and flat out wrong, and needs to be vigorously opposed. Using the word 'stealing' for both doesn't make them equivalent.

The former, however, is also intellectually dishonest. Sometimes it seems like the word 'theft' is being systematically undermined so that the ignorant or stupid can be tricked into conflating the two distinct meanings together in their mind.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Can we just agree that copyright infringement is copyright infringement?

Does it so desperately need a new title?

We're people who can operate computers, we don't need single syllable words to define things.

It's copyright infringement and it's bad.

It's also, as Jim says, far worse when you're doing it the select few people who are actually trying to drag the industry kicking and screaming into the 21st century, by selling their stuff in a sensible, non paranoid, unlocked and easy to buy and enjoy way.

I do however agree that not everyone who's torrented an indie bundle is evil tho, I'm sure many people made the payment then torrented it to save on server costs for the guys. It's just a shame that "Pay what you want (but come on guys, throw us a few bucks so it doesn't end up losing us money in paypal fees and server costs)" isn't a more catchy title, but really, if you can't pull together a dollar a title in a bundle, you're being kinda tight.

I've been pleasantly surprised to read of the success of Louis CK's recent experiment with internet sales. Instead of going thru a massive corporation to get the DVD made, promote it nationally, pay for massive displays in stores, banners on sites, etc, he just organised the show himself, got it filmed, and had a site set up to sell the download for a lousy £5.

He made more from every £5 sale than he would have got from $20 dvds, and recently he passed sales of a million bucks. Sure it's getting pirated, but I think anyone who did that and enjoyed it, and has a glimmer of a soul, would then throw him the five bucks for being entertaining.

In short, whatever you do, there's always going to be cunts who take it for free. (A shorter term than paedophile burglar, too!)

What I suggest is, have some reasonable measures in place, but when it comes down to it, is it worth punishing the legitimate and the honest to mildly annoy the minority of shitty people who you won't get anything from without taking to court anyway.

On the flip side, the more you make it easy to both enjoy and pay money for the entertainment you offer, the more people who are on the fence about piracy will come down on your side and hand over the bucks.

I hate to repeat something over and over, but Steam. Easy, convenient, cheap, reliable, mild DRM that doesn't get in the way, and no filling out page long forms, just click and it's already downloading. Also part of the reason Amazon and many other web stores succeed, it's EASY to hand over your money, and then you just get what you want with no strings.

 

[Raesvelg]

When you add bits to your account, no "money" is trasnferred. Nobody's losing anything. Just like piracy. If anything, the bank is *gaining* money, because according to their records, they now have more of these infinitely copiable bits to lend out.

Speaking of laughable...

Yes, money exists. Yes, it is a finite resource. No, the bank can't just turn around and say "LOLZ WE ADDED ZEROES NOW WE HAVEZ MORE MONIEZ".

There's this little thing called "accounting".

Maybe you've heard of it?

 

[deadpool.forever]

I'm voting for Jim 2012

 

[Stickfigure]

Hacker has always meant the same, even when it was a Hollywood favorite. Fag has a different definition in different countries so let's not pretend it's interchangeable. If you are in the US, fag doesn't mean cigarette.

Stealing bread is still theft, it's just more justified than holding up a bank at gunpoint and shooting a clerk. Theft is theft and copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If they were the same then they would both have the same terminology. Terminology is so important, I don't think many people realize just how powerful words are. Take the word "rape", that word has more power than "forcible sex".

Fair enough, I can dig it. Certain words carry meanings that can taint an action

But then what about "piracy?" It was once largely defined as a word that, until the early 1900s, meant simply "theft of cargo."(it was a nautical term) Further modified, piracy meant "unlicensed radio broadcasting" in the early 1900s, which has at best a tangential relationship with the downloading and distribution of files. It was, at best, colloquially used occasionally to describe unwelcome use of another's work, but that was (until the last 20 years) mostly about as common a use as one saying that something is "tits" to describe something as "fantastic." Somehow this vernacular became the common word, I don't really see how "theft" is exempt from this. Yet no one seems all that put off by piracy as the proper word.

In fact, wait, let's step back for a second:

Hacker has always meant the same, even when it was a Hollywood favorite.

Whether or not it was co-opted by Hollywood, there's little arguing that the definition of the word has expanded through its re-use. Hell, type "hacker" into Google news search, and with the exception of some article about Facebook, most mainstream (and not so mainstream) media clearly uses the word a different way. Whatever the etymology of the word, it has since advanced.

Still, I guess it's really immaterial. "Theft" and "piracy" are used by people seeking to malign the action, and I suppose people who feel the act ought not to be maligned are incensed about it. Probably should've been more obvious, but it still seems like a petty point in a greater argument to me.

 

[orangeapples]

I think the issue that needs to be tackled is the ideology of the pirate.

If I were to summarize every argument I have heard for piracy of any form of media is that everything should belong to everyone. The people who create should create for creating's sake, not for person gain. If a caveman built a spear he did not keep the idea to himself, but he would make lots of spears and show others how to make spears and it benefited human society, not the individuals within. We live in an era where ideas can be freely exchanged over the internet at an instant. There is no reason to artificially hold back this exchange for companies that just want more money.

Now all of that sounds good and all, but they seem to not have a grasp of the real world. Yes, developers are creating video games and other media because they enjoy creating these things, but in order to do that they will need to be able to survive. These people need food, shelter and adequate warmth. If developers had to get a job as well as make games they would not have enough time to do both. Certain creations are ideas and want to be exchanged freely, other creations are products and want to be exchanged for goods. People do not want to pay for ideology, but they will be willing to make donations.

Then there is the issue of access. With Operation Rainfall they are getting Xenoblade Chronicles (a 2 year old game) finally released in North America. Many of those in NA who wanted to play this game did a number of things: They knew Japanese and imported the game supporting Nintendo of Japan, they saw that Europe had localized the game in English and imported the game supporting Nintendo of Europe or they sat on their hands and just waited for Nintendo of America to do something. Oddly enough, both importing from Japan and Europe were considered piracy and not capitalism, go figure. With the game finally seeing a NA release, Nintendo lost the majority of their market. Not many will be willing to pay for a 2 year old game they already played.

If it were suddenly announced that Mother 3 was going to be localized for the WiiU Ware Channel, how many people would buy it? Honestly, who would? Not nearly as many people who would claim that they will. I'm certain there would be a group of people who would buy the WiiU solely for that 1 game, but not a lot and not enough. When it comes to Japanese based games (animeish, has a bunch of Japanese in-jokes) many players of that genre prefer to have the Japanese voices on with their own language subtitled. All that would have needed to happen was translate the text. probably a month of work if there is a lot of text.

If game companies really did care about piracy they would have worldwide releases with roughly consistent prices across the board. I know it is possible because when you load up Assassin's Creed: Revelations you see that pretty much every single branch office of Ubisoft worked on the game. Skyward Sword is a game that had been released to the world within a week (but that probably has to do with the whole no voice work thing and all they would have needed to do was translate text).

Australia has probably got an insane piracy rate which would not happen if the games were released within the same year as everyone else and didn't have to pay an insanely high price. Remember, games imported from another region is considered "piracy". We live in an era where video game news can be freely exchanged over the internet at an instant. There is no reason to artificially limit releases for companies to harm their consumers.

How would that play out?

Japan: 6,000 yen
North America: 80 USD, 80 CAD, 1,000 MXN
Europe: 60 EUR
Australia: 75 AUD

huh, go figure, the Australian Dollar is more powerful than the American Dollar... Who knew? well probably Australia, and probably everyone outside of America >_>

hmmm... basing it on the American prices would probably make everyone happy and Americans would probably not even know what happened...

North America: 60 USD, 60 CAD, 760 MXN
Japan: 4,500 JPY
Europe: 45 EUR
Australia: 55 AUD (what is that? 40% off what you pay now?)

Flat universal pricing and universal releases would really put a dent in the whole piracy thing. Steam is doing a pretty good job considering how they conquered the Russian market and seeing how they get during their random sales seasons, I don't even think a base price system would matter.

Also, used sales hurting developers/publishers is BS. The developers/publishers make all of their money when the retailers buy the game from them, it has nothing to do with how many copies the retailers can sell. Not to mention that publishers stop caring after the first month. If the game doesn't do well in that first month it is considered a failure and they have other projects to start thinking about.

 

[GeorgW]

Love the new intro/outro.
I've been saying it since the first video, those bastards that pirated HiB deserve whatever they get. It's mind-boggling how cheap/evil they are.

humbel indie bundle: DON'T PAY ONE CENT. they will lose money

What if I have 20 friends, and I like 5 of those friends more of the others, so I buy 15 $.01 bundles (and always make sure it goes to humble bundle) and 5 $20 bundles? I would love for them to add that option, it makes me feel so bad every time I see that "Need money for food" picture >.<
But yeah, you're right, don't pay $.01, they deserve more.

No no no, that is the WORST thing you could do, if you wanted to do it properly you would buy one bundle for $100.15 and give out the download links to your friends.

Each time you push that .01 "donation" you are actively COSTING the humble folks money, because Paypal charges more than that for the transactions

What if you don't use paypal?
Also, isn't giving out the code pretty much piracy?

 

[Raesvelg]

The former, however, is also intellectually dishonest. Sometimes it seems like the word 'theft' is being systematically undermined so that the ignorant or stupid can be tricked into conflating the two distinct meanings together in their mind.

Whereas their opponents are equally dishonest, attempting to avoid a word with a strong negative connotation in order to evade the moral responsibility inherent to their actions, instead choosing to frame their crimes in terminology more neutral and less visceral, so that the general public will be less inclined to castigate them for their wrongdoing.

Let's both be honest here: the people who are all up in arms about how copyright infringement is not theft aren't doing it out of some bizarre grammatical crusade.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

When did theft come to mean that somebody lost something?

You go in and add a bunch of zeros to your bank balance, then buy a bunch of games on debit.
The bank didn't lose anything, no physical object was transferred, the store got paid. Are we going to argue there was no theft there.

Theft has been widely understood, since basically the dawn of history, of someone taking something that doesn't belong to them.

That the other person no longer had it was simply a side-effect of physical reality, but was never the point of theft.

Not until pirates started thinking, "How do I justify my douche-baggery?" anyway.

This is similar to when I tried to equate piracy with counterfeiting money, but I've since given up as 'copyright infringement' is what it is, and that's why those words are used.

But essentially, if a few million people hack in, multiply their balances by a thousand or so by adding the zeros, then all go spending, suddenly you're causing both inflation and massively devaluing the money.

When you copy a game, taking it for free, you're essentially devaluing the originals, as now there's free ones out there, why buy the full price one? (apart from , you know..having a soul, heart or brain.)

When people pirate, they're essentially 'buying' a free copy, instead of buying a copy from the makers. Not saying it's a lost sale, but the existence of the free ones does devalue the originals I believe.

 

[Epona]

Whatever, I doubt that anyone can just add zeros as they see fit and then go shopping and no one will lose anything. If that's your argument then what is stopping you from doing that?

Me personally? That I'm honest. I know, that might be hard for you to understand the concept, but there it is.
In general? Excellent hacking protection, essentially, working DRM.

You're full of shit, you can't just make money appear out of thin air.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

The "one cent" thing is acknowledged, though it still dodges the actual issue in an attempt to make torrenting seem more noble. Just pay the minimum to keep them afloat. Something tells me those pirating it don't exactly care who loses money in this equation.

 

[Marmooset]

Sorry, Jim. Can't have it both ways.
Whatever they may say above the line, a pirate does not pick a title thinking "I wanna stick it to developer X", but they pick a title thinking, "game X looks cool. I want it, but I don't wanna pay for it."
Stealing is not dependent upon the victim. It is dependent upon the perpetrator.

 

[BanZeus]

From a non-legal standpoint, I'm not certain what makes people so insistent that piracy not be called theft. From the perspective of someone who is not prosecuting or defending anyone in a legal battlefield, the sentiment is still the same. You take something that is being offered one specific way by a developer, tell them that you know better than them when it comes to how their work is distributed, and then create a scenario where they receive no recompense for their work. While the specifics don't necessarily fall in line with theft, the spirit of harming someone else financially for one's own personal benefit is still fairly similar.

Really guys, you're not in court, and while you can perhaps defend certain acts of piracy, things like this can't be gussied up by changing the word.

Apples are not oranges. If you refer to apples as oranges you are wrong. If you persistently misrepresent apples as oranges in order to sway public opinion in your favor, you cannot justifiably claim the moral high ground.

The analogy breaks down when you get into juice/cider territory...

 

[Epona]

The former, however, is also intellectually dishonest. Sometimes it seems like the word 'theft' is being systematically undermined so that the ignorant or stupid can be tricked into conflating the two distinct meanings together in their mind.

Whereas their opponents are equally dishonest, attempting to avoid a word with a strong negative connotation in order to evade the moral responsibility inherent to their actions, instead choosing to frame their crimes in terminology more neutral and less visceral, so that the general public will be less inclined to castigate them for their wrongdoing.

Let's both be honest here: the people who are all up in arms about how copyright infringement is not theft aren't doing it out of some bizarre grammatical crusade.

Except that copyright infringement and theft aren't the same thing so those who are saying that are simply telling the truth. That's not dishonest. What is dishonest is trying to use a stronger term that doesn't apply just to make it sound worse.

It's like when a person kills in self defense but then is referred to as a murderer, it's dishonest but the general public reacts differently to the word murder.

 

[Stickfigure]

Apples are not oranges. If you refer to apples as oranges you are wrong. If you persistently misrepresent apples as oranges in order to sway public opinion in your favor, you cannot justifiably claim the moral high ground.

The analogy breaks down when you get into juice/cider territory...

Fair enough.

However, taxonomic definition is a closely guarded thing. Criminal terminology and vernacular phrasing is a significantly less concrete and more abstract notion.

On an unrelated note, this reply has made me thirsty.